Sri D H Iswara Sa Vs the State of Karnataka

PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI M.G. SRIIVASA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS S/O LATE D.GANGADHAR SA NO.29, 2^ND MAIN, CKC GARDEN, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶13

SRI SUNIL PADMANABHA MAGAJI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O M.G. PADMANABHA NO.32, 2^ND MAIN, CHENNAPPA GARDEN, MISSION ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶14

SRI.M.K. NITYANANDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O M.G. KESHAVA, NO.29/2, 2^ND MAIN,

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶17

CHENNAPPA GARDEN, MISSION ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. MADHUSUDAN R., NAIK SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. KIRAN J., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶22

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT, KHANDHAYA BHAVANA, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶23

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER, PODIUM BLOCK, 3^RD FLOOR, VISVESWARAIAH TOWER, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶24

THE KARNATAKA STATE

¶25

ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,

¶26

BENGALURU-560 027

¶27

1. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶28

BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION BMTC CENTRAL OFFICE K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶33

SRI. R.V. JAYAPRAKAH., ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A DECLARATION THAT THE ACQUISITION MADE BY THE RESPONDENTS VIDE NOTIFICATION0 10.0.DATED.14.10.1992 BEARING NO.LAQ(2) SR 13/92-93, ISSUED UNDER SECTION 4[1] OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 VIDE ANNEX-A AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED.23.03.1993 BEARING NO.RD BUS VA DE/93, ISSUED UNDER SECTION 6[1] OF THE LAND ACQUSIITION ACT, 1894 VIDE ANNEX-C STANDS LAPSED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 AND ETC.

¶35

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

Petitioners 1 to 3 being the owners and petitioner Nos.4 and 5 being the purchasers are before this Court seeking following reliefs:

¶39

"1) Issue a declaration that the acquisition made by the respondents vide Notification dated.14.10.1992 bearing No.LAQ(2) SR 13/92-93, issued under section 4[1] of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide Annex-a and the Final Notification dated.23.03.1993 bearing No.RD BUS VA DE/93, issued under Section 6[1] of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide Annex-c stands lapsed in view of the provisions of "The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013".

¶40

2). b(i). Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring that the acquisition notification dated 14.10.1992 & 23.03.1993

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶43

issued under section 4(1) & 6(1) of the LA Act bearing no LAQ(2) SR 13/92-93 stands lapsed in view of the fact that the possession of the land never taken and award not passed.

¶44

b(ii). Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring that the acquisition notification dated 14.10.1992 & 23.03.1993 issued under section 4(1) & 6(1) of the LA Act bearing no LAQ(2) SR 13/92-93 stands lapsed in view of the fact that scheme for which it was issued was not implemented.

¶45

Case of the petitioners Nos.1 to 3 is that they along

¶46

with their father Hanumanth Sa were the owners of various lands comprised in Sy.No.120/1 measuring 38 guntas, Sy.No.128/2A measuring 31 guntas, Sy.No.128/2B measuring 13 guntas, Sy.No.128/3A measuring 20 guntas, Sy.No.128/3B measuring 15 guntas and Sy.No.128/4B measuring 8 guntas, all situated at Kengeri Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru. That the said lands were notified for acquisition in terms of the preliminary notification dated 14.10.1992 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Final Notification dated 20.03.1994 issued under Section 6(1). Aggrieved by the same, petitioners 1 to 3 had filed writ petition in W.P.No.25361-364/1994 which was allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 01.02.2000 as against which respondent No.2 herein had preferred writ appeal in W.A.No.5899-5902/2000 which was

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶49

allowed by order dated 02.07.2003 setting aside the aforesaid

¶50

order dated 01.02.2000 passed in the aforesaid writ petition.

¶51

Petitioners herein preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.17-20/2005, by order dated 27.10.2010 the Apex Court dismissed the said petition confirming the order passed by the Division Bench. A review petition filed by the petitioners was also dismissed.

¶52

Further case of the petitioners is that in the meanwhile out of six items of the properties notified for the benefit of respondent No.2 as above under the Land Acquisition Act, the State Government issued a notification under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, intending to acquire three items of the properties for the purpose of formation of NICE road and industrial purposes. Thus the original purpose for which the aforesaid lands were acquired no longer survives.

¶53

That though an award is stated to have been passed on 25.05.1996, the compensation amount has not been disbursed to the petitioners. The possession of the land has not been taken as prescribed under the provisions of law. No

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶56

developments have taken place. Respondents have never

¶57

utilised the land and have thus abandoned the project.

¶58

In the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter petitioners are before this Court invoking provisions of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as Sections 24(2) and 101 of the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2013).

¶59

Sri. Madhusudan R. Naik, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners taking this Court through the documents enclosed to the petition submits:

¶60

(a). That admittedly declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was made on 05.05.1994 and it is claimed that an award has been made on 25.05.1996. The said award does not have previous approval of the State Government.

¶61

(b). That in terms of Section 11A of the Act, 1894 the Collector is required to make an award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 within a period of two years from the date of declaration and if no award is made within the said period, entire proceedings/acquisition of land shall lapse.

¶62

7 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶64

(c). Thus referring to Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, learned Senior counsel submits that the passing of the award on 25.05.1996 was thus beyond the stipulated statutory period of two years. Thus, in view of non-compliance of statutory requirement of passing the award within two years from the date of declaration, by operation of law the process of acquisition has lapsed.

¶65

(d). He further refers to Sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 in that he submits that admittedly award was passed on 25.05.1996, which is five years prior to coming into force of Act, 2013 and that neither the compensation is paid nor possession of the property has been taken. In justification of his submission learned Senior counsel takes this Court through the Communications dated 01.04.2015, 09.06.2021, endorsement dated 15.04.2021, 18.10.2024, produced along with the memos dated 11.06.2021, 21.04.2024 and 24.10.2024 respectively. In that he points out that the intra office correspondence between the respondent authorities would indicate that though the land purported to have been acquired back in the year 1992 and award having been passed

¶66

8 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶68

in the year 1996 the award amount has neither been deposited nor paid to the petitioners.

¶69

(e). Further as late as 01.04.2015 none other than the respondent No.2 has sought for handing over the possession of the property which fortifies the case of the petitioners that there is complete non compliance of the requirement of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Thus, he submits that in view of the statutory provisions of law referred to above namely Section 11A of the Act, 1894 and Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 the acquisition proceedings required to be declared as having lapsed.

¶70

(f). He relies upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Narayan Thatte and others Vs State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2009) 9 SCC 1992 . Referring to paragraph Nos.22-28 of the said Judgment, learned Senior counsel submits that in view of the scheme of the Act, the provisions providing for acquisition would operate on their own and no amount of any intervening factors would stop the operation of the Act. Elaborating the said submission, learned Senior counsel refers to earlier orders passed by the Division Bench in writ appeal and confirmed by the Apex Court.

¶71

9 -

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶73

In that he submits that the writ petition was allowed on 01.02.2000 quashing the acquisition proceedings. While the writ appeal was allowed on 02.07.2003. Therefore, relying upon the aforesaid Judgment of the Vijay Narayan Thatte and others, learned Senior counsel emphatically submit that mere filing of the writ petition, passing of the orders in writ appeal and confirmation by the Apex Court would not stop the operation of law governing lapsing of acquisition as provided under the statute. Hence, he submits that the petition requires to be allowed.

¶74

Learned AGA appearing for respondent-State in response submits that;

¶75

(a) when the writ petition was filed by the petitioners the challenge was only with respect to the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 and no grounds with regard to lapsing of the acquisition was raised.

¶76

(b) that though the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 claimed to have sold the property in favour of the petitioner Nos.4 and 5, the said aspect of the matter was not brought to the notice either before the Division Bench of this Court or before the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶77

10 -

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶79

(c) that since the petitioners have not raised the issue of lapsing of acquisition they have forfeited their contention regarding lapsing of the proceedings and they cannot be allowed to urge in the subsequent proceedings.

¶80

(d) that totally 07 acres and 18 guntas of land was acquired, out of which portion of land had already been utilized except the portion of the land which the petitioners are claiming to be vacant. Learned AGA however clarifies that no portion of land in Sy.No.128 is utilised. Thus he submits that the invocation of provisions of Sections 11 of the Act, 1894 and Section 24 of the Act, 2013 would be of no avail. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶81

Sri. R.V. Jayaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 vehemently opposing the very maintainability of the writ petition submits that;

¶82

(a) the petition is filed at the instance of the petitioner Nos.4 and 5, who are the purchasers of the subject property subsequent to issuance of notification. As such they have no locus standi to maintain the same.

¶83

11 -

¶84

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶85

(b) Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shivakumar and another Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2019) 10 SCC 229, learned counsel vehemently submits that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is clear, in that a subsequent purchaser is not having locus-standi to challenge the acquisition including raising the ground under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

¶86

(c) that admittedly petitioner Nos.1 to 3 having sold the property during the pendency of the proceedings have lost all rights and the said alienation is hit by doctrine of lis-pendence. Therefore, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 cannot be heard to say that they are aggrieved in any manner by the acquisition process. Since, the sale in favour of petitioner Nos.4 and 5 is prohibited by law which is void-ab initio , no benefit can be given either under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 or otherwise as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thus he submits that the petition requires to be dismissed at the threshold.

¶87

(d) On merits, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 referring to Possession Certificate (¸ÀÄ§zÀÄð¥ÀvÀæ) dated 31.12.2018 as per Annexure-R2 submits that acquisition has been completed in every aspect including taking over of the

¶88

12 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶90

possession and the possession handed over to the respondent No.2 by the Tahsildar. Thus, he submits that all the aspects requiring completion of acquisition have been met with, leaving no grounds to the petitioner to be urged. Hence seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶91

Learned Senior counsel in response to the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to the case of Shivakumar (Supra) points out that merely because petitioner Nos.1 to 3 have alienated the property, they would not lose the right to question the acquisition, inasmuch as, even as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivakumar (supra) , the right to seek compensation would continue. He further submits that the said judgment was rendered in the context, the purchase was subsequent to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 and which was operating un-interruptedly, whereas in the instant case the said notification has been quashed by the learned Single Judge and there was no impediment in petitioner Nos.1 to 3 alienating the land in favour petitioner Nos.4 and 5.

¶92

Heard and perused the records.

¶93

13 -

¶94

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶95

Issuance of notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 seeking to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 is not in dispute. There is also no dispute of the fact that the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 had approached this Court in W.P.No.25361-364/1994 which was though allowed by order dated 01.02.2000 in favour of the petitioner Nos.1 to 3, quashing the acquisition, the same was subsequently reversed by the Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 02.07.2003 passed in W.A.No.5899-5902/2000 and confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It appears petitioner Nos.1 to 3 have sold the property in favour of petitioner Nos.4 and 5 in terms of deed of sale dated 09.04.2003.

¶96

Adverting to the contention raised by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 regarding maintainability of the petition and reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivakumar (Supra), though there cannot be any dispute with regard to the principles of law laid down therein, the facts at hand are distinguishable. In that, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein have sold the subject property in favour of petitioner Nos.4 and 5 on 09.04.2003, which is the date subsequent to the order dated 01.02.2000 passed by the Co-

¶97

14 -

¶98

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶99

ordinate Bench of this Court quashing the notifications and before passing of the order dated 02.07.2003 by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.5899-5902/2000 setting aside of the said order of the learned Single Judge.

¶100

As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners there was no impediment for petitioner Nos.1 to 3 in conveying the property in favour of petitioner Nos.4 and 5 during the interregnum i.e., between the order dated 01.02.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the acquisition and the order dated 02.07.2003 passed by the Division Bench of this Court setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. On a query by this Court, it

¶101

is clarified that there was no interim order of any nature, whatsoever passed in the writ appeal staying the operation of the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Thus, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 have sold the property during the period when there was no subsistence of any notification for acquisition.

¶102

However, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 hasten to add that the sale was during the pendency of the proceedings, therefore the same is hit by doctrine of lis-

¶103

15 -

¶104

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶105

pendence. That may be an aspect operating in a different context but would not amount to prohibition or causing impediment for alienation or would not make sale "void ab initio", as contemplated and adverted to in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivakumar (Supra). Thus the facts obtained in the present proceedings are distinguishable from the facts involved in the case of Shivakumar (Supra). Yet another aspect to be seen is that in the case of Shivakumar (supra) as seen at paragraph No.17, even according to the averments made in the writ petition therein, possession of land had been taken over in the year 2000 and unauthorized colonies had come up in the area. In the instant case land is admittedly still in the possession of the petitioners and possession has not been taken for over 33 years.

¶106

Also pertinent to note as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner after quashing of the notification by learned Single Judge by order dated 01.02.2000 in W.P.No.25361-364/1994, the respondent-State itself had admittedly notified very same land comprising in Sy.No.128/1, 128/2 and 128/3 under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act by its

¶107

16 -

¶108

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶109

Notification dated 08.05.2003. In other words the respondentState itself had treated the acquisition made by it under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the year 1992 having stood quashed or abandoned, the respondent-State has not filed the writ appeal. The sale of land by petitioners 1 and 3 in favour of petitioners 4 and 5 was thus at a period when there was no operation/subsistence of notifications under Section 4(1) and under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as the said notifications had been quashed by order dated 01.02.2000 as noted above. It is submitted that the challenge to the acquisition made by the respondent-State under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act is still pending consideration. Be that as it may, the fact remains that purchase made by the petitioner Nos.4 & 5, cannot be held to the void ab initio as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 and 5. Moreover the petitioners No.1 to 3 who were the owners of land have also joined as petitioners. Therefore under these peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter in the considered view of this Court the writ petition is maintainable.

¶110

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Narayan

¶111

Thatte and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

¶112

17 -

¶113

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶114

reported in (2009) 9 SCC 92 adverting to the operation of period of limitation contemplated under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 at paragraph Nos.22 to 24 has held as under:

¶115

22. In out opinion, when the language of the statute is plain and clear then the literal rule of interpretation has to be applied and there is ordinarily no scope for consideration of equity, public interest or seeking the intention of the legislature. It is only when the language of the statute is not clear or ambiguous or there is some conflict, etc. or the plain language leads to some absurdity that one can depart from the literal rule of interpretation. A perusal of the proviso to Section 6 shows that language of the proviso is clear. Hence the literal rule of interpretation must be applied to it. When there is a conflict between the law and equity it is the law which must prevail. As stated in the Latin maxim dura lex sed lex which means "the law is hard but it is the law''.

¶116

23. Learned Attorney General appearing for the respondents submitted that the judgment of the High Court dated 20.1.2004 permitted the authorities to issue a second Section 6 Notification even beyond the time provided by the proviso to Section 6 of the Act. He has invited our intention to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said judgment which reads:-

¶117

"2. Having gone through the record of the petition and the file which is made available to us by Mr. Patil, with respect to the acquisition of lands of the Petitioners, we are of the view that the Petitioners did not appear to have been afforded reasonable opportunity as is required under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No reasons are insisted upon injustification of this conclusion which we have arrived at as declaration under Section 6 issued concerning the lands of the Petitioner dated 29.8.2002 will have to be set aside and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The Petitioner need inspection of the record from the office of the Land Acquisition Officer, Mr. Patil, A.G.P. Assures that within one week from today, inspection will be offered to the Petitioners. Dr. Tulzapurkar states that the Petitioner will file their objections within two weeks thereafter.

¶118

3. All parties agree that hearing contemplated under Section 5A by the Special Land Acquisition Officer should be completed

¶119

18 -

¶120

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶121

within two months thereafter as far as possible. Dr. Tulzapurkar makes a statement on instructions from the Petitioner that the objections with respect to the period within which Section 6 notification has to be issued from the date of Section 4 notification, will not be raised by the Petitioner if the Petitioners are finally aggrieved by the 5A report and subsequent declaration under Section 6. Needless to say that the Special Land Acquisition Officer should pass a reasoned Order when he considers the objections from the Petitioners. The entire proceeding will be based on Section 4 notice which has led to the present proceedings and that notice will continue to govern the acquisition of these lands."

¶122

24. In our opinion, there can be no estoppel against a Statute. Since the Statute is very clear, the period of limitation provided in Clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 6 of the Act has to be followed, and concessions of the counsel can have no effect. As already stated above, the proviso is mandatory in nature, and must operate with its full rigour vide Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2007) 3SCC 470 (para 17).

¶123

The principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the aforesaid paragraphs are similar to the situation contemplated under Sections 11 and 11A of the Act 1895, same can also be inferred and extended to the operation of provisions contained under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. In other words, lapsing of acquisition is by operation of law, should there be non-compliance of the timeline contemplated under these Sections. It may be that a specific and express declaration of lapsing is required to be granted but that alone cannot prevent the operation of law making the acquisition

¶124

19 -

¶125

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶126

ineffective for non-compliance of the timeline stipulated under these provisions save by any order by the Court of law.

¶127

On facts, admittedly the final notification was issued on 05.05.1994 and the document produced at Annexure-J to the petition would indicate that the award is stated to have been passed on 25.05.1996. In terms of Section 11A the award ought to have been passed within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration and that if no award was passed within the said period the entire proceedings for acquisition would lapse. The award admittedly having been passed beyond the statutory period of said two years operation of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act will come into effect resulting in consequential lapsing of acquisition.

¶128

Though the award is stated to have been passed on 25.05.1996 which is clearly more than five years, prior to coming into force of the Act, 2013, the same in neither paid nor deposited and no possession of land is admittedly taken by the State, as such the provision of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 would also come into effect.

¶129

In this regard necessary to refer the correspondence produced along with memo dated 11.06.2021 namely the

¶130

20 -

¶131

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶132

information furnished under the Right to Information Act by the Special Land Acquisition officer vide communication dated 09.06.2021 reads as under:

¶133

ಕ�ಾ�ಟಕ ಸ�ಾ�ರ

¶134

3�ೇ, ಮಹ�, �ೕ�ಯಂ �ಾ , ��ೆ�ೕಶ�ರಯ� �ೇಂದ� �ೆಂಗಳ�ರು-560 001 ¸ÀASÉå:J¯ïJPÀÆå(3) J¸ï.Dgï/04/92-93 ¢£ÁAPÀ:09.06.2021

¶135

�ಷಯ:- !ಾ"# �ೋ%ರುವ ಬ(ೆ).

¶136

ಉ+ೆ�ೕಖ:- -�ೕ ಅರ�ಂ/ ಕು!ಾ0 ರವರ ಅ1� 2�ಾಂಕ: 3-04-2021.

¶137

3ೕಲ5ಂಡ �ಷಯ�ೆ5 ಸಂಬಂ78ದಂ9ೆ , �ೆಂಗಳ�ರು ದ:ಣ 9ಾಲೂ�ಕು, �ೆಂ(ೇ% UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA. 128/1, 128/2J. 128/2©, 128/3J. 128/3<, 128/4< gÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ �ೆ .ಎ>.ಆ[email protected] ಸಂAೆB(ೆ ಭೂAಾ�7ನEಾFದುG, ಸದ% ಪ�ಕರಣದI� Jಾ�ಥLಕ ಅ7ಸೂಚ�ೆ 4(1) 2�ಾಂಕ: 14-10-1992 Nಾಗೂ ಅಂ#ಮ ಅ7ಸೂಚ�ೆ 6(1) 2�ಾಂಕ: 05-05-1994ರI� Nೊರ�ಸ+ಾFರುತPQೆ . ಅದರಂ9ೆ ಕ�ಮ ಸಂRೆ�: 22(3) 2..04/92-93 ರಂ9ೆ ಐ#ೕಪ�ನುT ರUಸ+ಾFರುತPQೆ . ಸದ% ಭೂಪ%Nಾರದ VತPವನುT ಭೂ!ಾIಕ%(ೆ Wೕ�ರುವ ಬ(ೆ) !ಾ"# ಲಭ��ರುವX2ಲ� / Nಾಗೂ ಸದ% ಪ�-Tತ ಜLೕನುಗಳZ ಭೂ!ಾIಕರ ವಶದI�[ೕ ಇರುತPQೆ . ಭೂ �ೋ%�ಾ ಸಂAೆBಯವ%(ೆ ಸದ% ಜLೕWನ ಸುಬದು� ವ"8�ೊಡುವ ಬ(ೆ) !ಾನ�, ಉಪ�]ಾ(ಾ7�ಾ%ಗಳZ, �ೆಂಗಳ�ರು ದ:ಣ ಉಪ �]ಾಗ ರವ%(ೆ �ೋರ+ಾFQೆ ಎಂಬ !ಾ"#ಯನುT ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮ(ೆ #_ಯಪ�ಸ+ಾFQೆ .

¶138

ಭೂAಾ�7ೕ�ಾ7�ಾ%ಗಳZ, �ೆಂಗಳ�ರು

¶139

ರವ%(ೆ : -�ೕ ಅರ�ಂ/ ಕು!ಾ0, <.@.ಎಂ +ೇಔa,

¶140

21 -

¶141

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶142

It is necessary also to refer the Communication issued by the Chief Traffic Manager to the Special Land Acquisition Officer reads as under:

¶143

�ೆಂಗಳ�ರು ಮNಾನಗರ Aಾ%(ೆ ಸಂAೆB

¶144

ಮುಖ� ಸಂbಾರ ವ�ವAಾBಪಕರು (Eಾ) ರವರ ಕcೇ%, �ೇಂದ� ಕcೇ%, �ಾಂ#ನಗರ, �ೆಂಗಳ�ರು-27,

¶145

ಸಂ.�ೆಮAಾಸಂ/�ೇಕ/ಸಂ/Eಾdಜ�/ಆ8P/12ಎ/2015-16 ¢£ÁAPÀ: : 01-04-2015

¶146

��ೇಷ ಭೂAಾ�7ೕ�ಾ7�ಾ%ಗಳZ,

¶147

��ೇಷ ಭೂAಾ�7ೕ�ಾ7�ಾ%ಗಳ ಕcೇ%, 3�ೇ ಮಹ�, ��ೆ�ೕಶ�ರಯ� �ೇಂದ�, �ೕ�ಯಂ �ಾ ,

¶148

�ೆಂಗಳ�ರು-560001.

¶149

!ಾನ�eೆ ,

¶150

�ಷಯ: �ೆಂಗಳ�ರು ದ:ಣ 9ಾಲೂ�ಕು, �ೆಂ(ೇ% Nೋಬ_, �ೆಂ(ೇ% (ಾ�ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ. 126, 127, 128 ರI� 7-15 ಎಂಗು ಜLೕನನುT ಕ�ಾ�ಟಕ eಾಜ� ರAೆP Aಾ%(ೆ ಸಂAೆBಯ ಪರEಾF ಭೂAಾ�7ೕನಪ�8�ೊಂ�ರುವ ಬ(ೆ).

¶151

ಉ+ೆ�ೕಖ: 1) ಸ�ಾ�ರದ ಪತ�ದ ಸಂRೆ� ಕ�!ಾಂಕ:ಆ0 � 22 ಭೂAಾ��ೆ 93/ 2:28.3.1994

¶152

ತಮf ಕcೇ% ಪತ� ನಂ:ಎg.ಕು�(3) ಡ>.ಆ04/92-93 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 07.06.2012 3) ¨ÉªÀÄ¸Á¸ÀA/PÉÃPÀ/¸ÀA/ªÁtÂdå/ ಆ8P /12J/5533/2012-13 ¢£ÁAPÀ:14.02.2013 4) ¨ÉªÀÄ¸Á¸ÀA/PÉÃPÀ/¸ÀA/ªÁtÂdå/ ಆ8P ì/12J/1612/2014-15 ¢£ÁAPÀ:23.07.2014 5) ¨ÉªÀÄ¸Á¸ÀA/PÉÃPÀ/¸ÀA/ªÁtÂdå/ ಆ8P ì/12J/3386/2014-15 ¢£ÁAPÀ:20.12.2014 6) ¨ÉªÀÄ¸Á¸ÀA/PÉÃPÀ/¸ÀA/ªÁtÂdå/ ಆ8P /12J/3762/2014-15 ¢£ÁAPÀ:16.01.2015

¶153

�ೆಮAಾಸಂ/�ೇಕ/ಸಂ/Eಾdಜ�/ಆ8P/12ಎ/3834/2014-15 ¢£ÁAPÀ:23.01.2015

¶154

3ೕಲ5ಂಡ �ಷಯ�ೆ5 ಸಂಬಂ78ದಂ9ೆ , �ೆಂಗಳ�ರು ದ:ಣ 9ಾಲೂ�ಕು, �ೆಂ(ೇ% Nೋಬ_, �ೆಂ(ೇ% (ಾ�ಮದ ಸEೆ� ನಂ.126, 127, ಮತುP 128 ರI� ಒಟುi 7- 15 ಎ/ಗು ಜLೕನನುT ಕ�ಾ�ಟಕ eಾಜ� ರAೆP Aಾ%(ೆ ಸಂAೆBಯ ಪರEಾF ಭೂAಾ�7ೕನ ಪ�ಸಲು ��ೇಷ 1+ಾ�7�ಾ%ಗಳZ, �ೆಂಗಳ�ರುರವರ ಪತ�ದ ಸಂRೆ�: J¯ÉJPÀÆå2/J¸ï.Dgï/13-92-93 ¢£ÁAPÀ 14.10.1992gÀAvÉ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£À PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 4(1) gÀ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ಪ�ಕ@ಸ+ಾFQೆ . ಉ+ೆ�ೕಖ ಪತ�ದಂ9ೆ ಸ�ಾ�ರದ ಪತ�ದನ�ಯ

¶155

22 -

¶156

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶157

�ಾ[G ಕಲಂ 6(1) ರ ಅ7ಸೂಚ�ೆ ಅನುVೕದ�ೆjಾF 2�ಾಂಕ: 05.05.94 ರಂದು ಕ�ಾ�ಟಕ eಾಜ� ಪತ�ದI� ಪ�ಕ@ಸ+ಾFQೆ . ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧ ರೂ.25,86,087/-ಗಳನುT 1992 ರI�[ೕ ಕ�ಾ�ಟಕ eಾಜ� ರAೆP Aಾ%(ೆ ಸಂAೆBಯು Jಾವ#8ರುತPQೆ . ತದನಂತರ ಸ�ಾ�% ಆQೇಶ ಸಂRೆ�:Aಾ%ಇ:127:@ಆ0.ಎ:96, 2�ಾಂಕ:07.08.1997 ರಂ9ೆ ಈ ಸ�ತುP �ೆಂಗಳ�ರು ಮNಾನಗರ Aಾ%(ೆ ಸಂAೆB(ೆ ಹAಾPಂತರEಾFರುತPQೆ . ಸಂAೆB(ೆ ಭೂAಾ�7ೕನEಾFರುವ ಜLೕನುಗಳI� ಸEೆ� ನಂ.126 ಮತುP 127 ರI�ನ 1-02 ಎ/ಗು ಜLೕನನುT 2�ಾಂಕ:25.05.1999 ರಂದು ಸಂAೆBಯ Aಾ�7ೕನ�ೆ5 Wೕಡ+ಾFQೆ . ಉ_ದ ಜLೕWನ !ಾIೕಕರು ಭೂAಾ�7ೕನ ಕು%ತು !ಾನ� ಉಚl�ಾ�jಾಲಯದI� VಕದG3ಯನುT QಾಖI8ದGರು, ಇದರ �bಾರmೆಯ ನಂತರ !ಾನ� ಉಚl �ಾ�jಾಲಯವX ಸಂAೆBಯ ಪರEಾF #ೕಪ�ನುT Wೕ�ರುತPQೆ . ನಂತರ ಸದ% #ೕn�ನ �ರುದo ಭೂ!ಾIೕಕರು !ಾನ� ಸpೕ�ಚl �ಾ�jಾಲಯದI� 3ೕಲfನ� ಸI�8ದುG, ಅI�ಯೂ ಸಹ ಭೂAಾ�7ೕನ ಪ�q�[ಯನುT ಎ#P"�2ರುತPQೆ .

¶158

�ೆಂ(ೇ% (ಾ�ಮದ ಸEೆ�.ನಂ.128 ರ ��ಧ "¸ÉìಗಳI�ರುವ ಜLೕನನುT ಸಂAೆB(ೆ ಹAಾPಂತ%ಸುವಂ9ೆ ಉ+ೆ�ೕಖದ ಪತ�ಗಳI� ಹಲEಾರು �ಾ% �ೋರ+ಾF, ಈ �ಷಯEಾF 9ಾವXಗಳZ ಉಪ�]ಾ(ಾ7�ಾ%ಗಳZ, �ೆಂಗಳ�ರು ದ:ಣ ಉಪ�]ಾಗ ರವ%(ೆ ಉ+ೆ�ೕಖ-2 ರಂ9ೆ ಪತ� ಬeೆದು ಭೂAಾ�7ೕನ �ಾ[G ಕಲಂ 47 ರಂ9ೆ Aಾ�7ೕನ ಪ�8�ೊಡಲು �ೋ%ರು#Pೕ%. ಆದರೂ ಸಹ ಸದ% ಜLೕನು ಸಂAೆB(ೆ ಹAಾPಂತರEಾFರುವX2ಲ�.

¶159

ಪ�ಸುPತ, ಈ ನಡುEೆ �ೆಂ(ೇ% (ಾ�ಮದ ಸEೆ� ನಂ: 126, 127, 128 ರI� ಸಂAೆB(ೆ ಭೂAಾ�7ೕನEಾFರುವ 7 ಎಕeೆ 15 ಗುಂrೆ ಜLೕWನI� RಾಸFಯವರು ಹಣ ಪsೆದು ಮಣtನುT ತುಂ<ಸು#PರುವXದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂ2ರುತPQೆ . ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧ 9ಾವXಗಳZ ಮಣುt Nಾಕು#PರುವXದನುT ತsೆಯುವಂ9ೆ Nಾಗೂ ಸಂAೆBಯ ಪರEಾF ಭೂAಾ�7ೕನEಾFರುವ ಜLೕನನುT ಅಳ9ೆ !ಾ� ಸಂAೆB(ೆ ಹAಾPಂತ%ಸುವಂ9ೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮfನುT �ೋರ+ಾFQೆ .

¶160

ತಮf ��ಾ�8,

¶161

ªÀÄÄRå ¸ÀAZÁgÀ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ (ªÁ)

¶162

Necessary also to refer to the documents produced

¶163

along with memo dated 18.10.2024 which is a notice issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer reads as under:

¶164

23 -

¶165

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶166

ಕ�ಾ�ಟಕ ಸ�ಾ�ರ

¶167

£ÀA. J¯ïJPÀÆå(3)J¸ïDgï/04/92-93 ��ೇಷ ಭೂAಾ�7ೕ�ಾ7�ಾ%ಗಳ ಕcೇ%,

¶168

3�ೇ ಮಹ�, �ೕ�ಯಂ �ಾ ,

¶169

��ೆ�ೕಶ�ರಯ� �ೇಂದ�, �ೆಂಗಳ�ರು.

¶170

¢£ÁAPÀ: 18-10-2024.

¶171

#ಳZವ_�ೆ

¶172

�ಷಯ: �ೆಂಗಳ�ರು ದ:ಣ 9ಾಲೂ�ಕು, �ೆಂ(ೇ% Nೋಬ_, �ೆಂ(ೇ% UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.128/1, 128/2J. 128/2©, 128/3J. 128/3<, 128/4< ರ ಜLೕW(ೆ ಸಂಬಂ78ದಂ9ೆ ಪ%Nಾರ ಪsೆ2ರುವ ಬ(ೆ) !ಾ"# �ೋ%ರುವ ಕು%ತು.

¶173

ಉ+ೆ�ೕಖ: -�ೕ ಪದf�ಾಭ ರವರ ಮನ� 2�ಾಂಕ: 16-10-2024

¶174

¶175

3ೕIನ �ಷಯ�ೆ5 ಸಂಬಂ78ದಂ9ೆ , �ೆಂಗಳ�ರು ದ:ಣ 9ಾಲೂ�ಕು, �ೆಂ(ೇ% Nೋಬ_, �ೆಂ(ೇ% UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA. 128/1, 128/2J. 128/2©, 128/3J. 128/3<, 128/4< gÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ �ೆ .ಎ>.ಆ[email protected] ಸಂAೆB(ೆ ಭೂAಾ�7ೕನEಾFದುG, ಸದ% ಪ�ಕರಣದI� Jಾ�ಥLಕ ಅ7ಸೂಚ�ೆ 4(1)ನುT 2�ಾಂಕ: 14-10-1992 ರI� Nಾಗೂ ಅಂ#ಮ ಅ7ಸೂಚ�ೆ 6(1)ನುT 2�ಾಂಕ: 0505-1994 ರI� Nೊರ�ಸ+ಾFರುತPQೆ . ಅದರಂ9ೆ ಕ�ಮ ಸಂRೆ�: ಎgಎಕೂ�(3)ಎ>ಆ0/04/9293 ರಂ9ೆ ಐ#ೕಪ�ನುT ರUಸ+ಾFರುತPQೆ . ಸದ% ಐ#ೕn�ನಂ9ೆ ಸ.ನಂ.126 ಮತುP 127 ರ ಭೂ!ಾIೕಕರು, ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ, ¸À.£ÀA.128/1, 128/2J. 128/2©, 128/3J. 128/3<, 128/4< gÀ ಭೂಪ%Nಾರದ VತPವX ಭೂ!ಾIೕಕ%(ೆ ಸಂQಾಯEಾFರುವX2ಲ� Nಾಗೂ ಪ%Nಾರದ ಹಣವನುT !ಾuಯ 8�g �ಾ�jಾಲಯ�ೆ5 vೇವd ಆFರುವX2ಲ� ಎಂಬ !ಾ"#ಯನುT ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮ(ೆ #_ಯಪ�8Qೆ .

ರವ%(ೆ ,

-�ೕ ಪದf�ಾಭ,

�ೆಂ(ೇ% (ಾ�ಮ,

�ೆಂಗಳ�ರು ದ:ಣ 9ಾಲೂ�ಕು.

¶180

�ೆಂಗಳ�ರು ನಗರ 1+ೆ�.

¶181

The perusal of the contents of documents dated

¶182

09.06.2021 extracted hereinabove would clearly manifests that though the award stated to have been passed, it is stated that

¶183

24 -

¶184

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶185

no material is available with regard to deposit or disbursement of the compensation to the petitioners-land owners. Contents of document dated 01.04.2015, the Communication addressed by Chief Traffic Manager to the Special Land Acquisition Officer as extracted hereinabove would evidence that no possession has been taken over by the respondent-Authorities and that the land owners have filled the land with mud. Contents of Notice dated 18.10.2024 extracted hereinabove, further clarifies that the compensation in respect of land in Sy.Nos.126 and 127 have been received by the owners of the said land and that the compensation in respect of land in Sy.Nos.128/1, 128/2a, 128/2b, 128/3a, 128/3b, 128/4b belonging to the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 has neither been disbursed nor been deposited before the Civil Court. Thus, the aforesaid material placed on record would manifestly indicate complete non-compliance of the requirement contemplated under Sections 11 and 11A of the Act, 1894 as well as Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013. The acquisition proceedings therefore cannot be held to have been completed.

¶186

In that view of the matter, this Court do not see any reason not to allow the petition. Accordingly following:

¶187

25 -

¶188

NC: 2025:KHC:1088 WP No. 42006 of 2015

¶189

ORDER

¶190

(i). Writ petition is allowed.

¶191

(ii). The acquisition in respect of the property belonging to the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein is held to have lapsed in the light of provisions contained under Sections 11 and 11A of the Act, 1894 as well as Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013. However the Respondent-State is at liberty to initiate acquisition proceedings afresh in respect of said lands in accordance with provisions of the Act, 2013, if so advised.

¶192

SD/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶193

RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Sri D H Iswara Sa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D H Iswara Sa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ramachandra N Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Mrs. Francis Balaraj Vs the Commissioner

Roopali Bai Vs State of Karnataka

Mr N Thayanna Vs the Commissioner

Sri N.Lakshminarayan Vs the State of Karnataka

Pramod R Kamath Vs State of Karnataka